identification law. perez.est is myrna we will also be joined by steve o'brien to talk about the future . usepentagon is planning to advanced aircraft in all branches of the military. washington or lost arts tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and everyday at 7:00 a.m.. tomorrow night, we will be bringing you the new york city mayor's with six candidates ,ncluding christine quinn anthony weiner. we will have live coverage beginning at 6:00 and the debate at 7:00 eastern. that will be a live simulcast. you can follow here on c-span and >> our series, first ladies,

influence and image, season two, premieres monday, september 9. in august, we are bringing you encore performance -- one.ntations of season tonight, here on c-span, lucy hayes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ >> it is so unfair to her. it is a dismissive, condescending title. it suggests she is smooth talking and her function in life was to not serve alcohol. lucy hayes is so much more. as was her husband. everything she accomplished in the white house was in spite of the fact her husband's legitimacy to be president was questioned. >> she was a charming person, very delightful. innovative.

>> one of the more controversial collections is the white house china. an article says the art was absurd. who would want to eat a lovely meal and see a duck at the bottom of their plate? >> she took an interest in public affairs from an early age. >> two causes that were important to her were veterans soldiers and or friends, children who were made orphans as a result of the civil war. >> she was a very devout mother. she does not neglect her children. she embraces the life. >> women's minds are as strong as man. equal in all things and superior in some. in 1831, born, in ohio, she was the first first lady lady to have a college degree. that tells us much about the time she lived in.

the civil war and into a time where technological innovation and significant social forces usher in an era of the norm is change for the united states. good evening and welcome to c- span's continuing series on america's first ladies. tonight, you will learn about lucy webb hayes. the wife of rutherford the hayes. here to start us off is a first ladies historian and author of a collection of biographies. welcome. in 1876, the country is joyously celebrating the 100th centennial of the declaration of independence and it is an election year. the election is greatly contested with no clear victor. tell us about the atmosphere with which it was at the white house. what was it like? >> susan, it is pretty

schizophrenic, to tell you the truth. we had just come out of the centennial celebration. they were coming to the white house, but they do not know if they will move into the white house. the election is not yet decided. what happened is samuel and rutherford b. hayes were in one of the closest elections in the united states at that point. there are three states that are so tight, the parties are tackling each other. the republicans said, we won. the democrats said, no, we won. hayes goes to bed thinking he has lost. they woke up the next morning and find out the republicans are challenging the vote. if they actually win the three states, he gets the number of electoral votes he needs to become president. they go through all the

negotiations back and forth. there is congress involved, trying to cut these deals. literally, it is not decided until he arrives in washington, when the deal is finally set. we can only imagine the schizophrenia, the fear, the disappointment, everything you feel. as you are on this train coming to washington. >> so worried were they about the possibility of a democratic coup that the inaugural day was a sunday. there was a private swearing-in at the white house. >> absolutely. and then he gave his inaugural address the next day.

absolutely. the country itself is still very unsettled. the civil war, even though it as been over for 12 years, it is very much in people's minds. it was such an intensely personal war. everybody had been affected by it. now you are trying to figure out how you will have construction for the hayes and try to stay true to your principles. for the democrats, how can we hold the feet to the fire to give us back our land and customs. plus, we have got all of these technological revolutions, the telephones just premiered. you have the typewriter. you have all of the new kinds of engines being done. you have a recession. it is sort of the first major depression we have had. the country is trying to figure out what is going on just as much as the hayes are. >> so they come to the white house with a great deal of government experience. a three term governor in ohio. had served in congress. a very popular governor of ohio. what did they do to establish their credibility when they get to washington? >> their personalities take

over. they begin to try to acknowledge the fact that the election is really controversial. he knows he has been called rutherford fraud hayes. what he does with his inaugural address is really set the tone for this. he makes overtures to the democrats. he opened the white house up. they began to try to engage in a public conversation and tackle the issues that tarnished the republican party. the corruption of the grant administration when he said there would be civil-service reform. when he really pledges to pull the remaining troops out of the

south. assuming that the governors, the government in new orleans and columbia will honor their commitment. he is trying to extend an olive branch to people, saying, i hear you. and i'm only going to serve one term so let's figure out how to make the most of this together. >> how did lucy help in this effort? >> she understood how politics work and how to entertain. she understood how to facilitate conversation between people that were difficult. she understood how to really bring people at the table in a way that would advance her husband. she was charming and everybody loved her, despite the no alcohol. she was able to do things in a way that made him seem approachable and ethical and blunt. >> she was the first first lady

to have have a college degree, and this was a time of change for women. at the philadelphia bicentennial fair, all kinds of new devices, being introduced to the home. the hoover vacuum cleaner. early washing machines. women were beginning to take advantage of this by beginning to move into the workforce.

is lucy hayes seen as a symbol for this? >> i do not think so. i think it is very easy to overstate the importance of the new labour saving devices and how many when it went into the workforce. women in workforce already have to work. the women who really entered the workforce by their own volition and interest really are the generation after her. when she comes to the white house, only five percent of women who work are working in what we would consider today white-collar jobs like stenographers and secretaries and professors and educators. she is on the cusp of that. to me, the thing that is really interesting about her is how she is stuck in the middle in a way that does not make her stuck. i know that sounds weird. the suffrage movement is totally divided along the lines of race. and whether women can vote or not. lucy hayes is the first college educated first lady.

she stood with surgeons during the civil war. she has seen more battles, more scars, more amputees, more suffering, than probably any first lady other than mary todd lincoln. she is not an avant gardeperformer. she is trying to find her own voice. it is hard to put her in a pigeonhole. >> on twitter, how did washington look upon lucy especially after julia grant's? >> that is tricky. they look at her as lovely, vivacious, happy, genuine, and then she does a gorgeous china and the press goes insane over it, writing about how difficult it is to eat food with a quail in the middle of your plate.

>> you mentioned the press. they are independently covering the first lady's. they become an object of national interest. >> yes. the press really is taken with her. they use the title, first lady, more for her than they had for anybody. even though it was in reference to mary todd lincoln. they like her. they see her as vivacious. they see her as somebody who is different. they really do follow her in her own light. >> throughout our program tonight, we will take you to the hayes home. you see a picture of it on your screen. this is the home where lucy and her family lived before the white house years. this library museum, they are all there to show what the first lady and family were all about. we are taken inside the home to learn about lucy hayes as a political partner and about some of the causes that were important to her throughout her

life. let's watch. >> this painting shows lucy tending to a wounded soldier during the civil war. two causes important to her were veterans and soldiers and orphans, children who had been made or friends as a result of the civil war. the painting was created to hang in an orphanage in ohio. it reflects the issues important to her. when people associated with the causes come here to visit, they would sit here in this parlor. this was host to a number of civil war veterans. the unit rutherford served in, the future president mckinley was a member of the 23rd, so his family was frequent guests here.

when they would gather here on the ground, when they would come in, they would sit in this parlor. lucy was a wonderful hostess. she wanted people to feel welcome. this is where they would discuss the issues of the day. she hosted a number of political figures here for dinner, including future presidents taft

and mckinley. also william shermer was a guest. as well as other local and national political figures. she is a partner with her husband. entertaining and serving at the role of hostess. that would have been incredibly important. >> joining us on our set, the director of the rutherford b. hayes presidential center, also open to the public. 24 years of his professional life was spent helping america preserve the history of the hayes presidency. we heard from allida black. your comments about the skills she brought to this job as she entered the white house. >> she was a partner to rutherford, a sounding board to him. she was able to engage people one-on-one and to make anybody she talked with think they were the only person in the room and the only person she wanted to talk with. >> the election did not end after they were sworn in. there was a congressional inquiry. here is one quote where he said,

sometimes i feel a little worried. this press and annoyance going on, i keep myself outwardly very calm -- what do we learn of her? >> she is defensive and has a bit of anger in her. >> she sounds like a good politician in her own right, able to mask the inner. >> one of my favorite things about that is it shows her passion to hold it in. at the end of the civil war, she was furious and everyone started talking about a reconciliation and forgiveness. she was saying, mercy is one thing but we have to have justice in mercy, which just shows her. >> i like to invite each week the participants in the program. we will go to phone calls. you can go to our facebook page. there is already discussion about lucy hayes. you can join that by asking

questions or posting comments. we will mix many of those in. to illustrate what kind of a person she is, she had lifelong interest after helping her husband on the civil war front. tell us about old veterans in the white house. >> yes. an old 1812 soldier came to the white house to receive an honor. he is supposed to have his picture taken. when he arrives, his uniform came separately. he was distraught the sergeants stripes were not on the uniform. lucy went and grabbed her sewing kit, sat down on the floor, sewed it on and the british minister came in, saw the first lady of the united states sitting on the floor at the white house, sewing on this gentleman's rank. >> which is how we learned the story. he told it. it is important to us to move on for a bit. first of all, today, we often see the expression or the nickname lemonade lucy. was she known as that at the time? >> not at all. we cannot find where it appeared. it is one thing that has become about her. one of the things that is

interesting about lucy is that she supports temperance, but never really affiliates with the women's christian temperance union, which was founded in ohio, her home state, by people that lived within 2 hours drive from her. they always try to co-opt her. she comes to this from her mother's father, her maternal grandfather, who is a member of the state legislator, who made her sign a pledge when she was young not to drink alcohol. that carried over with her. she was never really a follower

of the temperance movement. >> what caused her to ban alcohol from the white house? was it religious in nature? did she ban alcohol from the white house? >> actually, no. her husband made the decision. it was a decision partly political. he wanted to keep the republicans within the party who were defecting to the prohibition party. he also wanted to set the moral tone. alcohol was the drug of choice in those days. there were many families ruined. you heard about the sons of presidents who managed to ruin their lives with alcohol. hayes was never a prohibitionist and never thought you should outlaw alcohol. he thought the people running

the prohibition party were political pranks who also outlawed dancing and cardplaying. he just wanted people to learn by education. >> how popular was the movement in the united states? >> it really takes off at the end of the century. they come in right at the beginning of it. the reason it begins to take off is when it merges with the women's suffrage movement. at the time of hayes's first movement into the white house, only 23 states could control their own property. one of the big problems with alcohol was, if women work, their wages legally belonged to their sons, husband, and they could not cash their own wages. they would take that and go in saloons.

>> and spend their money on alcohol. >> the saloons gave you cheap beer. it is a complicated issue. it is easy to say they are turning everybody into alcoholics. what they are doing is organizing people, giving them a place to party, encouraging them to drink, and not having women's recourse over their own money. that is why it really takes off. it leads to prostitution, bankruptcy, and venereal disease. >> lucy was lobbied by the movement to become the public's

advocate to the cause. did she agree? >> she did not agree. she spoke to her husband and did not feel women should be allowed to vote. she was not an advocate of women's suffrage. women's suffrage people came to the white house and she'd show them around, gave them a tour of the conservatory and the rooms. but did not buy in. >> here is a quote that helps to illustrate that. she said it is a great mistake to suppose i desire to dictate my views to others. i do not use them myself but i have no thought of shunning those who think and act differently. what do we learn from her? >> she is a fabulous politician. and she is not an absolutist or a moralist.

what she has got its she has made her decision. she believes moderation is good and bad like her husband, she is in no way interested in outlawing everything and that she is sticking to her own beliefs. and trying to be respectful for others.

>> they wanted to memorialize the decision to serve alcohol in the white house. lucy was not pleased by that decision. the first thing they wanted to do was build a fountain. she said, i do not want my memorial to be a water fountain. i want to be in the hearts of people rather than on a piece of canvas and particularly the irony of it being a water fountain was certainly be galling. she was certainly not happy they were trying to raise the money to do this one dime at a time. she said, i think i am worth more than a dime. >> it became the official white house portrait. we are showing it to you on screen so you can see how we have preserved lucy hayes. how different is that view of her from the woman you came to know through your research? >> very different. the woman is an enigma. she is trying to figure out how to be her own person. she has been stereotyped in a way that mary todd lincoln had been stereotyped. it does not show the courage and incredible guts she had. i just wish america understood. if i could tell them one thing about lucy hayes, it is that i find it stunningly haunting how much violence she saw up close during the war. in surgery and out.

not only in ohio hospitals, but going to her husband's camps where her brother was a surgeon. she was in and out of the operating room. she did post operative care. she saw people without anesthetics suffering in horiffic ways. when four soldiers, two of whom were wounded and two of whom were significantly ill, missed their train to chicago, she opened her back parlor to her house so they could stay. it makes perfect sense to me that she had those stripes on. i would be convinced that is the least she owed that man. for what she knew he went through. >> on the note about violence -- >> there was a report a bullet went through their parlor window in columbus before they came to

the white house. there was no secret service. they took it as it came. their son buried a pistol and he was their only form of security. >> from springfield, missouri, you are on. are you there? go ahead. >> hi. i wanted to give a quick birthday shout out to my dad. he is a huge fan of the program. >> wonderful. >> i have a question. why does lucy become an early supporter of the republican party?

>> she was an abolitionist right from the start. the republican party was the party of abolition. she was an admirer of john and his wife. she would be a republican right from the beginning. >> on the women's suffrage movement, and the famous name, elizabeth cady, people came to the white house to see the president, and how did hayes react to her personal petition to be involved? >> they rejected it and they did not support women's suffrage. it had become an exceedingly controversial person in republican circles. she was very much opposed to the 15th amendment. it excluded women. she had really campaigned against the principles the hayes dedicated their lives to, the basic principles of reconstruction. she was not well received at

all. >> was lucy hayes interested in any women's rights issues? >> yes. she was absolutely passionate about women's education and encourage young women to go to college, which was a radical thing to say during her time at the white house. she saw temperance to a certain extent, as a way to help women. if you are asking about women's wages, where women work, women's rights to join a union, women's rights to vote, which were the major political issues of the time, she did not associate with that. >> different questions about the college degree. i will ask a couple of them all at once. first of all, on facebook, i am not sure if they had majors back

then, but what did she study in college? other people want to know, where did she go to school? >> in cincinnati, ohio. she got a degree in liberal arts. she studied rhetoric, composition, english, all the standard things. i do not think she studied political science. all was applicable to what she ended up being as first lady. she had to deliver speeches, which was probably good preparation for later in life. >> on facebook, anxious to know whether or not she rubbed her degree in the face of the elite while in the white house?

>> no. she was a good politician and knew how to carry on a conversation without being erudite. she did not give offense. >> next, scott, tennessee. what is your question? >> i do not have a question. i just want to say lucy hayes and rutherford, they are just great role models. i have enjoyed studying them. they were really moral people. i really admire them a lot. >> thanks very much. again on twitter, it seems she might have been more popular than rutherford.

is that true? >> there was a comment made saying, when the hayes traveled, rutherford insisted on lucy going along with them so no one would say anything bad about rutherford. perhaps she was more popular than he was. >> the next call comes from julie in venezuela. are you there? >> it has been great. we are learning so much american history. it is just fantastic. >> do you have a question about this first lady? >> yes. are they the first power couple in washington? >> no, i would say the first

power couple in washington were john and abigail adams. the first power couple in the presidency were martha and george. >> another call. delighted to have people watching in venezuela. lindsay is in pennsylvania. what is your question?

>> i do not have a question either, but i thought it might be fun for your viewers to know i am a relative. my maiden name was burchard. nobody understood it. i am proud to have it as part of my heritage now. when i was in high school i did some research on rutherford b. hayes and i found out he had

quite the sense of humor and ended up riding a bicycle through the white house. i thought your viewers might get a kick out of knowing that. >> thank you so much. did he have a sense of humor? >> he did. it was a bit understated. he cut up apples at the dinner table and tossed the people at the pieces at the people at the table. he could also tell a joke. >> lucy hayes gave birth to eight children, five of whom went to adulthood. are the a lot of descendents in the country? >> we have more than 100 hayes descendents in our databases. we have four members of the family on our board of directors. we had a reunion a couple of years ago. a couple of the descendents came. >> entertaining at the white house, it was a dry white house

but they used it a lot to entertain. talk about that. >> sure. the thing i thought was interesting about this was how lucy hayes would hate steak dinners but pulled them off. she would be very vocal with people around them about that. she was able to, with an ease and a grace and an ability to put people at ease, really help open the white house up to people in a way that would be very different from mary todd, who would be charming but had an edge to her. lucy was just kind and was able to talk at the level of the person who was with them. >> she was particularly good with old people and children. that came through to everyone. >> we are about to return. michael on twitter asked is it true the name was a german word for mirror? >> yes. the ground there is clay. water does not percolate in easily. water sits on the ground. it comes from the german word for mirror. >> what time in their life together did they move into the place? >> 1873 when they inherited the home from rutherford's uncle, who was his surrogate father, who was a lifelong bachelor. they improved the house twice. they added to it in 1880 when they came back after the presidency and 1889, the year that lucy died. >> how many square feet? >> 16,000 square feet. a huge house.

seven bathrooms. 11 bedrooms. >> how much was open -- is open to the public? >> the entire house. we just spent $1.5 million bringing the first floor of the home back to what it looked like during their time. using vintage photographs and creating a lot of the wallpapers and furnishings. >> you are looking at some of the results on your screen. we will learn more. you have been hearing allusions to lucy's choice of the china for the white house. we will show it to you next. you decide. do you like it? >> we are lucky to have a number of items that belonged to us from lucy hayes at the white house. one of the more controversial collections is the white house china. it was controversial at the time. it remains controversial to this day, because of the pattern of the china. lucy was an outdoors person. she loved nature. when it was time for her to choose what the white house official china pattern was going to be, she wanted to do something with ferns. davis was chosen as the artist to work with her to create the china. they met out and were going to decide what would make a good

pattern. as the two of them talk, david suggested creating scenes that would highlight the united states. lucy thought that was wonderful and that is what they did. some of the patterns are beautiful. some of them are interesting. we have bleeding fish, ducks. people at the time did not feel this was appropriate formal china. even some of the journalists of the day wrote scathing articles of the china. one journalist said the art was absurd. another article was written that said, who would want to eat this lovely meal and finish up their meat and see a duck and a giant frog at the bottom of their plate? people felt it was not appropriate to have. lucy felt like this was a way to educate people from foreign countries who were not familiar with the united states, and this would be a way to show them what nature in the united states was like. >> what do you think of the china? >> i actually like the china. they made many other copies of each of the items for sale to the general public because the company and france said they were losing their shirt on the whole project and wanted to make

some revenues and that is what you see sitting on the side board there. >> how scathing were the press reviews? >> scathing. the most polite language was absurd. i saw stuff that said grotesque. undignified. the press thought it was not fitting for the white house.

>> and she continued to use it? >> yes. >> it was not delivered until months before they left the white house. kennedy used the soup plates for cigarette ashes. so did richard nixon. gerald ford loves to the set and would use to serve breakfast. >> we will spend a little time, but let's talk a little bit about how they got together in the first place. how did the hayes meet? and those important years of the civil war. >> they first met when lucy was only 15 and rutherford was 24. they met at the sulfur springs at the ohio university in delaware, ohio. at that point, president hayes' mother knew lucy and thought they would be a good match. she was a bit too young at that point. in 1850 when rutherford moved to cincinnati to start law practice down there, he met lucy again when she was about to graduate from the wesley female college and that is when they struck up their relationship.

a year and a half later, they were married in cincinnati. >> he was 40 years old at the time the civil war broke out. what was the decision by the family for him to volunteer? >> he signed up for a three-year stint, and she was very supportive of him. it was never a really serious discussion about him not going. it was always a question of going to preserve the union, and also because loosely had some strong abolition feelings, she was additionally supportive of the union. >> what was hayes history in the civil war? how was he seen as a leader?

>> he spent most of the civil war in western virginia trying to keep most of the confederates moving from theater to theater. whenever he did get out of there, he was wounded five times, once badly, almost lost his left arm. william mckinley was also in the same unit, and then he turned into a tiger when he was on the battlefield, when he was a mild- mannered attorney, to being a warrior.

>> his exploits had to become known. >> he was nominated to run to congress. he said famously he would not campaign. he said a man who would leave his post should be scalped, he said. that was used on campaign posters when he ran for president in 1876. >> there is a dramatic story i would like to have either of you tell of his wounding. lucy was back in ohio. he telegraphed, i am wounded. come to me. what happened? >> it was a combination of errors. a soldier was given money to send telegrams. he turned out only to have money enough for two telegrams and he sent them to the men and not his wife. she found out about it. they arranged in advance to meet in the house here in washington, dc. she hopped on a train with her brother-in-law, went to all kinds of places to find her husband. a man said he is back out in middletown, maryland, at the scene at the battle of the south mountain. her brother, who had fixed his arm, spent two weeks with him. the painting you saw earlier in

the segment depicted her administering to the troops there. >> one of the interesting stories about the train ride, the train was so crowded, she has got to stand up all the way. when she finally sits down, she is sitting next to a woman who is distraught and turns to her and says, she is trying to see her husband, who is in the hospital, before her husband dies because he has lost both his legs. she is just praying she can get to see him before he dies. just imagine what she is feeling. >> we will return in just a second. first, in rockville, maryland, you are on the air. >> i was wondering what lucy's religion was and how religious

was she? >> thank you so much. an important question because it colored a lot of the way they lived in the white house. >> lucy was a very devout methodist. her grandfather, who served as her father, because he died when she was two years old, was a devout methodist. so, a very devout methodist. >> in this video, you learn more about lucy hayes as a wife and mother. >> lucy was very dedicated to her family. her children were extremely important to her. we know from diaries and letters this was kind of their gathering space. not only is this their bedroom, but this is where they spent a lot of family time together. the room is also very important to lucy as a mother, because the babies were born in this bed.

tragically, one was never really a healthy child and when he was 18 months old, he actually contracted dysentery and passed away, something that was very hard on the family. this is what she took with her when she was in camp with her husband during the civil war. he was an officer in the civil war. it was very important to her she be with him as often as was practical.

when he was not out on campaign, she would travel with him. she often wrote she was very concerned about the welfare of the men at the regiment. she took this with her and she would do some sewing. she was a very good seamstress. when she was married, she made her own wedding dress. this is something that would have been important to her. something that is interesting, this is where they had family christmas. they would write about these in the diary entries. they would have breakfast, then they would come in here and open the presents. the whole family would gather in here. they had very simple presents, not a lot of presents. this was the space they would do that. they had day to day activities with the family here. this watercolor painting of the president and lucy's bedroom at the white house. there was very vibrant blue colors here. here in their bedroom, the color scheme was here. we know she liked the color

blue. we know that by this painting here. when we were reupholstering some of the furniture here and tried to take it back to what it originally looks like, we found color swatches of the original fabric embedded within the pieces of furniture. this is the bedroom of their only daughter. her name was fanny. her name was after the president's much beloved sister. this was a painting of her with her father. she was one of the only daughters. you can imagine a little girl growing up in a house like this with a lot of brothers. even though her parents claim she was on the favorite, she had the furniture specially made for her. she had a bigger bedroom. she certainly was the darling to her mother and her father.

>> from that, i want to call up on a picture we found that is a very compelling picture of lucy hayes. let's show it to you right now. where was the picture taken? >> it was taken in the conservatory of the white house. it shows lucy with her daughter, her son, and her daughter of theodore davis, who was the man who designed the white house china. she loved the 12 conservatories that were in the white house. every morning, she would send flowers off to the various hospitals. in washington, dc, she was a very compassionate person, and a number of the flowers she sent were to peggy eaton, who we have heard about on previous occasions. when she died, lucy sent flowers off to her funeral.

>> bob is watching us in baltimore, maryland. >> hello. i am enjoying the program, as always. my question involves a key intellectual. she and her husband, the collection of books. she not only enjoyed reading books, but collecting them. did she have any particular type of book or genre that she preferred? >> the hayes collected over 12,000 books, all of which are at the rutherford hayes library in ohio. she preferred fiction. she liked harriet beecher stowe. she liked to read to the children. rutherford's taste went more toward the heavier drama. they would sit around and read to each other from the latest book or dickens. >> we are talking about life in the white house. an interesting juxtaposition, they preserved that and found some of the predecessor's furniture. they were also interested in

technology. they brought the typewriter, the plumbing in the white house, and what else did they do to the building? >> i am not sure. >> congress would not appropriate money to fix it. the carpets had holes in them. she strategically placed the furniture. the ones on bottom were put up toward the top. she found pieces of furniture in the attic, got a few things reupholstered, and went out and bought some pieces. once they finally got money, she put new carpets in the east room and reupholster pieces and added one more conservatory. >> that is preserving the white house history as it is. technology is fascinating to me. alexander graham bell comes and brings the telephone. did they install telephones in

the white house? >> they have the first in washington, dc but it only went to the treasury department she was so thrilled by it she had singers sing loudly into the phone. one bass singer hit a particular note and exploded a piece within in the receiver of the phone. thomas edison also visited the white house and arrived at 11:00 at night because congress kept him there too long. he was demonstrating the machine. rutherford was so impressed he got the ladies up at midnight. it took him an hour to get dressed again and they stayed up until 3:00 in the morning playing with the new recording

device. >> right now in washington, the washington monument is being reconstructed. after the earthquake we experienced not too long ago. lucy hayes was responsible for overseeing the completion of the washington monument. can you tell us a story about it? >> the money had been appropriated during the grant administration, but they did not get around to doing it. thomas, who was in charge of public buildings in washington, dc, was a very good friend of the hayes. he was the one that oversaw it. lucy spent a lot of time with him because he was also the man in charge of the white house china. she liked to take people on tours of things. a stuffed owl got caught up with in the washington monument. when the owl caused it to shake, people thought it was an earthquake. at that point, it was only an owl. we have it on display at the museum in fremont. >> we have told you the hayes marriage was a love match, and

quite a partnership. while they were in the white house, they marked the 25th anniversary of their wedding and did so with a public ceremony. all of us would be envious of this. she wore her wedding dress after giving birth to 8 children. that is pretty impressive. lucy in rutherford renewed their wedding vows. was this genuine or a political move? >> it was genuine. they sell did anything for public affect. the just did have to be let out quite a bit. it was the dress. she did not wear it for that long.

>> ok. [laughter] this quote is from her. she writes -- >> so what was her view of other first ladies? do we know? >> that shows her humility and her feelings of inadequacy more than anything. she thought a lot of the first ladies that went before her were quite spectacular people. i think she was being hard on herself. >> a question for you on your scholarship. looking across ladies in this era, how does she compare? >> i think she made it through with much less tension. she came in at probably the most trying time in our nation's

history. when mary todd is trying to deal with immediate horrors of war, and trying to make the white house the nations symbol, she gets press criticism in a different thing. when she tried to spend the nations money in a way where it really should be going toward fighting the war. what lucy gives us is a transition into the end of reconstruction. the country really understands her strong abolition feeling. they also see how graceful she is. she helps smooth the tensions that julia grant had. when her husband was under fire. i think lucy really makes it her own place in a way that is

easier, if that makes sense. what do you think, tom? >> she tried to get rid of a lot of the formality and to invite people to come in off the street who may not have felt like they could come in during previous administrations. >> she really did try to make it the people's house. >> it seems like the last four first ladies we have learned about found the white house in great disrepair. did things wear out more quickly back then? >> people also stole things. the claim that there was a gentleman that would go around after public receptions with a bucket full of pieces of chandeliers to replace them when they were stolen. the carpet, all sorts of things. >> you find yourself arrested today. >> things get dirty also. they track it.

you can get clean, but you cannot get perfectly spotless. >> on the streets of washington, dc, they were mud. you get 3000 people coming in on a public recession in the afternoon, you would tread a lot of mud. >> we have a terrific website. we have been working with the white house historical association on this series and we have created a great website for this. there is a first ladies link easily accessible. all of the programs we have done so far are there. every week, we have a special feature. this one is a video of the 25th anniversary of the hayes.

you will see the cameo created for that event. find our website and you will learn more about the history of the first ladies. we have been talking about about her image. we will return and learn more about her white house dresses. >> style and image was an important part of being first lady. whether they like it or not, people were discussing the ways first ladies dressed. the gown is what she wore for her official white house portrait. this gown is called ashes of roses. she wore it for her oldest son's wedding. this was another gown she wore to her wedding, the wedding of

her niece, which actually took place in the white house. lucy had her own style. journalists said, oh, she will change her hair. she will upgrade her appearance. she was very comfortable. that is not to say she was not an elegant dresser. she was. this blue velvet gown is a perfect example of that. it is lovely with a lot of fine details but it is not ostentatious. it is a little conservative. this gown here is what she wore to a new year's reception which took place at the white house. this is the one that has the most sentimental value to lucy. she sewed it herself and it is her own wedding gown. >> on facebook, a question about lucy's personal style. was her hair parted in the style of the day?

we have meant first ladies who understood the power of influence. was she one of those? we have met first ladies who understood the power of influence. was she one of those? >> she did not change her hairstyle. it is what she wore her entire life. i think she was very comfortable with who she was. she understood how to carry herself well. i think her clothes reflected not the daringness of the time, but the dignity of her position, not in a way that made her seem colorful and vibrant without >> what do youive. think? >> she saw herself as a mother

of eight. she should not be an exhibitionist. the tone was fairly conservative. it was something wholesome. >> caitlyn is watching us in springfield, missouri. >> hi. >> good evening. question? >> how did she cope with losing children at such a young age? >> losing children was a normal thing back then. the saddest story was the loss of the first of the children, lucy and the children had gone to visit rutherford in the field in the battle of west virginia. within a couple of days, their son died. they gave his body to a soldier to take back to cincinnati for burial, and the rest of the family remained in camp. rutherford never really became attached to the child and it was

she did grieve. she did not have a whole lot of time to grieve because she had to take care of the other children and move on. >> next is a call from bill in ohio. >> thank you for taking my call. how many descendents does president hayes have living right now? thank you. he was notso much. listening earlier, i think. >> we have more than 100 in our database. >> are any of them in politics? >> there are not any at the national level. ahere is a mayor in california. republican, and a woman. >> we have been looking at quotes from lucy. let's show you a quote from the president about lucy.

what was her approach like? some of the first ladies would sit in a congressional gallery. they would address specific members of congress. was she one of these first ladies? >> no, no one from the immediate family would have a paid position in the government, to try to keep her family members, mainly, from applying for jobs. at different times, lucy would write to her son, who was a confidential secretary to his father, saying, could you try to influence your father on appointment? lucy felt she was getting no place with rutherford.

>> he was a president who appointed african-americans. could you tell us about that? >> he did appoint frederick douglass as the marshall of the city of washington, dc. he was very aware it was symbolic.a gesture on his part. he also had african-americans appointed to a number of positions in the south, mainly. the hayeses were also the first to have a black opera singer performed for them in the white house, and had some other black performers on their saturday performances in the white house. >> many people are interested. we talk about the fact she helped with the funds to finish the washington monument. you earlier mentioned her interest in orphans of the civil war. what other causes was she involved in?

>> she was interested in mental health, as well. in terms of the sanitation and treatment that we today would consider to be shellshocked soldiers. she would care a lot about veterans' pensions, if they were disabled. there are wonderful records of when she would care for people, who were -- and this is before she was really a first lady, when she would still be in ohio. there would be wounded soldiers who had not been paid. and she would help set up a system to expedite the on time delivery of their paychecks. she was interested in orphans, veterans affairs, and the education of the deaf.and in

mental health. >> also, she was involved with the indigent population in washington, d.c.? >> yes. she did that without fanfare about it. she would give money to some of the employees of the white house to go out and give to the poor. another one of her causes was the education of indians and of she went down to for genia, the hampton institute, -- went down to virginia, the hampton institute, and saw indians being educated there who paid for a scholarship for a woman who would be the wife of -- i am having a mind thing here.the carlisle indian school was founded during the hayes administration.

she had a bit to do with that. >> rutherford hayes, as we learned, was announced from the beginning that he would be a one term president.constant tussles with congress. here are just some of the events during his administration. ine end of reconstruction. 1878, the bland-allison act.that calls for the resumption of silver coinage. it,s vetoed and congress passed the measure over his veto. he vetoed the army appropriations bill after three versions. hayes finally accepted. finally, in 1880, the u.s.-china treaty.it restricted immigration and banned the open the -- the opium trade. how does history view the hayes administration? >> what hayes managed to do was not have the scandals you had during the grant administration, he managed to retrieve some of the powers of the presidency

that was been lost. during the johnson and the grant administrations. he appointed his own cabinet, made a couple of other controversial appointments hethout congress's blessing. was -- he brought the country together. they were traveling throughout the country. the hayeses wanted to include the south and the west and new england. at the time, he felt the nomination of the election was a -- the nomination of james garfield, and garfield's lection, was a sign he could have been elected if he had chosen to run for a second term in office. he decided the corner had been turned and the republican party was now swinging back. >> they were the most traveled presidents.is that correct? >> they traveled thousands of

miles.almost always together. they were the first to go to the west coast during their term in office. >> was there extensive press coverage of the travels? say to other things about the hayes administration that viewers might be interested in, especially those that followed the machinations of the senate? one of the things hayes was really very successful in doing ridersmiting the number of that could be attached to legislation, to change the intent of legislation. and in an incremental way, he really put in a civil service system, where you assessed peoples qualifications before you gave them jobs. >> we talked about presidential congregations. the hayes seem like progressive diversity advocates of their era.if you agree with that or

not all stop what would you give us a sense to what was happening to black america in each year of reconstruction? >> i think the hayeses were progressive. they were ineffectual in really helping the south adhere to the law. i say this as someone who was born and raised in tennessee. hayes pulled the last troops out after securing written commitments from the southern states that they would adhere to the civil rights of the 14th and 15th amendments.guaranteed to african-americans. when hayes pulled the troops out, equality in the south implodes. you have racial violence escalating, the ku klux klan skyrockets, you have the

mississippi codes, which began in 1877 and were crystallized in 1901. it deprived blacks of being able to own property. restricts voting rights. for example, in mississippi. and i think in 1871, 97% of african-american men can vote in the state of mississippi. when hayes and's reconstruction, 10 years later, less than 1.5% of african-american men can the.the violence, intimidation, the grandfather's clause, the poll tax. it is really two separate nations where african-americans emboldened by frederick douglass in the north began to really organize and begin to secure the rights while the south have

theirs stripped away.>> mike is watching us in honolulu. you are on. go ahead. >> can you hear me? >> yes, thanks. >> it is hawaii standard time. i have a direct relative to my grandmother, of course.her name is jesse hayes. she was born in 1870. in the lower midwest.probably, by blood, long removed. i looked at this beautiful lucy sitting in the chair, looking at the camera with those big eyes, and her beautiful children looking at the camera. obviously,mpressed. president hayes really really scored when this woman married him. she was an educated woman.

at the time, i presume, it was kind of controversial having a first lady with a degree, let alone an abolitionist and a quiet woman who loved her children and especially loved her husband, whether he was president or mayor or wherever. >> thank you. that was a nice summary of lucy hayes for us, all the way from they said they. were going to stay one term. but by the time it was time to leave, how did they feel about leaving the white house? >> they were relieved to be leaving, but they also said it was the best time at that point but they felt they did not want to wear out their welcome. they managed to do some of the things they wanted to do, but they were happy to hand it off. let the garfield's sit in the hot seat for a while.

>> we are going to return for another video. this is about post-white-house years. >> these are a few of the tokens the hayes received in appreciation. lucy was known for not serving alcohol in the white house. some of the temperance groups that existed in the united states at the time really admired her for taking that kind of stand. as they were leaving the white house, there was a group of women, the women's christian orking association, that belonged to a presbyterian church in illinois, they wanted to give her a gift for -- to thank her for making that stand. they sent a number of pages to notable people in illinois, and asked them to sign the paper for mrs. hayes. when all the papers were returned, they bound them into these beautiful volumes we have

here. there are six of these.there are interesting signatures. k.e is from sarah poll mrs. james polk, nashville, tennessee. we also have another autograph that is kind of interesting. it was written by samuel clemens, also known as mark twain. what he wrote is total abstinence is so excellent a thing it cannot be carried to too great of an extreme.in my passion for it, i carry it so far as to totally abstain from abstinence it self. it does sound like something mark twain would seay. the group also had these lovely things made of for lucy. they are beautifully embroidered. they are very large. they were basically door curtains that hung right

here in the house in this doorway and they divided this room, the library parlor, from the president study. >> what were the post-white- house years like?>> they were not as long as they wanted them to be, but they enjoyed having their family back together. they only had one child married at this point. they still had teenagers at home with them. one son at college and the other working in cleveland. they hoped to have grandchildren coming in at any point.they entertained people. but the hayeses kept going with their causes. hayes was a trustee of the university. lucy was involved with the women's home missionary society, the only organization she ever took a leadership role with. >> what did she do for them? >> she was the president of the organization. she would go kicking and screaming to the annual meeting.

she would make a short address each year. what the women's home missionary society was supposed to do was improve home life for the poor, educate women on how to raise a family, basically, blacks, indians, poor people of the there were 44,000 members of the organization, with 42 missions throughout the united states. >> she came into criticism for comments she made. >> she made a comment that there were more immigrants coming in from the heathen nations, the eastern european countries, and she thought in those countries they did not respect women and the chore of trying to assimilate them into the united states would be tougher.but they would attempt to do so. she got criticism after that

speech in 1887. >> it shows interest continues in couples even after they leave the white house. is this a new phenomenon? >> no. the press hammered mary todd and sent salacious rumors about ouija boards, insane tantrums, and hallucinations and institutions. i think the hayeses brought america back in a way after the war. they are relatively scandal-free when they leave the white house. their devotion to each other is palpable. they do not change with they are there or when they leave. the country continues to be interested in them and grateful. >> why was she giving speeches wast immigration?what happening to the country, in terms of immigration? ineurope is imploding

economic crises and the second wave of revolutions. you have new immigrants coming into the united states no longer english-speaking an irish catholic.they are disproportionately from central europe, russian jews, and italy. you have people of different races and different education levels and different religions and different skills that scare americans. it is a fear teddy roosevelt will very much express. >> next is jennifer watching us in indiana. hello. >> i enjoy this series so very much. i did just catch that, i heard the one son was college educated.more all the children college-educated? childrenll the other

college-educated? what did they end up doing with their lives? the other ones i did not hear about? >> all four of the boys went to college. they were college graduates. the daughter, fannie, did not go to college, which was rather strange considering the background of the parents. their oldest son, burchard, was an attorney in toledo. the second son was the founder he became quitee. wealthy. he was the gentleman who started the presidential center, which opened in 1916. their third son, rutherford, became a real estate developer in north carolina. and in florida. their fourth son, scott, worked for general electric out of and then out of schenectady, new york. where there -- >> were there additions to the grove?

i have another tweet, did the hayeses have any pets? the answer is, boy did they.>> they did. in 1880, they had a three bedroom, large room, and a library. lucy never saw the back addition to the home, which had four more bedrooms and a large dining room.they had pets. they had, in the white house, a mockingbird, a couple of dogs, the first siamese cat in the united states, given to them by the ambassador, also the name of -- the ambassador from siam, as they called it at that point. that was also the name of the cap. it died on the trip out west and was buried at the white house. many pictures of them with the dogs. they also had cows, pigeons, ducks, you name it, she had it. >> just to follow-up.your comments about healing.

-- is she as concerned about veterans from the south as veterans from the north? >> yes, but in a different way. she wanted to make sure -- she looked at that as a way to reconcile, not as a way to really put mercy on southerners. what she really wanted veterans to be was to have their wounds healed, their pensions on time, and that the country get over the war and advance the cause of negro rights. >> this is the final video in this program. it talks about lucy hayes years there. let's watch. >> lucy was such a nurturing person. she cared about children and less fortunate members of society and also love animals and loved being outside.

when she returned in the white house, it was not long before she had a whole menagerie of animals here. she had notes, to cows, chickens, cats, dogs.she loved to have dogs near her. she loved pigeons so much, interestingly, that she had holes drilled into the risers between some of the steps here so that the pigeons would have places to roost. some of the last pictures we have of her before she passed away, she is out here in the yard, feeding the pigeons, wearing one of rutherford's old beat up hats, and she loved animals so much, she loved to go outside and do her chores, and when people came to visit her, she would take them out to the chicken coop with her to feed this was very much a part of her. this was very important to her. when rutherford and lucy returned from the white house, this place was still important to them. it was the nucleus of the

household. it is where the family spent there in formal time. they are older, they have got grandchildren, which they love it when grandchildren visit them here. one of lucy's favorite items in this room is an advertisement .hat features a very happy baby it so reminded her of her eldest grandchild that she hung that picture in here by her bag.-- her bed. this is also the room where lucy's story ends. she was sitting in one of the chairs here in this room. she was working on some needle points and watching her younger children play tennis outside the windows here. she suffered a massive stroke and slumped over in her chair and the family rushed in and carried her to the bed and this she wase she passed away. buried in a cemetery here in fremont. eventually, her children had her and rutherford reinterred here,

and they are now buried here on the grounds. >> how old was she when she passed away? >> she was 57 when she died. she had her funeral there and was laid out in the front hallway. thousands of people came through. one of the great stories of her funeral was the procession went back behind the home and passed the area where the cows were assembled. they lined up like soldiers. said they gave her a salute as she left. >> her love of animals. i want to go back to the photograph we just saw in the video of lucy hayes in her post- white house years with her pigeon. >> they have the holes drilled in the steps right outside the household bedroom. that must have been annoying. perhaps they got up early in the day. she fed them daily.mine out and milk the cows, gather the eggs. >> did the president share her love of animals but tolerate her love of them.-- or tolerate her love of them?

>> rutherford did not love them but was an avid horseman, as was she. >> how long did he live after her death? >> three more years after her death. >> how did he spend that time? >> he was still active with the university, prison reform, and he attended a lot of conferences. did a little bit of traveling, finally got out of the united states, visited bermuda, and other than that, only in the united states. he stayed out of politics. he felt past residents should-- presidents should really stay out of he did rejoices. when republicans were elected. he was not so happy when democrats were elected will stop -- were elected. >> damion is watching us in new york city. you are on. >> this is a fascinating show. i have never known a much about the hayes. thank you for this tremendous,

tremendous show about both of them. i must say, rb hayes was a unique guy.the idea that he would only have one term was amazing. most importantly his wife was so influential given her college credentials and the fact that you know, during his presidential incumbency he was the first president to allow women to testify in front of the supreme court. do you believe that his wife had much to do with that? and do you believe that helped craft his decision-making around policy? thank you very much for the show. >> i do not think it had anything to do with the women testifying before the court. what about you? >> president hayes it did sign

the legislation that allowed women to testify before the-- to practice before the supreme court. it just happened that the bill was placed before him. that was pretty much it. >> anything more about the influence she may have had? >> i do not think there was much, they agreed on most things. she knew better than to lobby hard on anything. >> i think the influence occurred much earlier when they were beginning -- when he was practicing law and she helped change his assessment of abolitionists which he thought were extremists. >> we want to go to the first discussion.about the election. i do not know if you know the answer. was there a deal in the senate that the senate would approve if he agreed to end reconstruction?

>> yes. the deal was hayes would remove the last of southern troops -- the indian troops in the south which were in new orleans and in columbia. to really pull the last of the army out of the south. hayes did do that. he only did that after he extracted promises from both communities that they would in fact respect the amendment which they did not. >> sam from san diego, you are back to the tilden election. quick question. how much did the controversy over the election with him getting the nickname rutherfraud affect her as far as out in the public? did she make comments in public?

>> she made no comments. i am pretty sure she was disturbed by it. they felt he would've been that is ifly elected. blacks had been allowed to vote in the numbers they had in the previous elections. >> we are getting close to the end of the program. i want to show you a work that was produced by the white house historical association. a collection of biographies of all the first ladies. we are offering this as a way for you to learn more on the biographies of the first ladies. you can go to the website i mentioned before. you can make it a part of your collection.how did you get interested in this subject? >> i came into it through eleanor roosevelt. i started going backwards and forwards to figure out which women were involved in policy and their husband's administration. i was lucky enough to be asked it has been aook. labor of love since 1996.

>> as we look across first ladies, a question we want to end the program with. what was lucy hayes' lasting legacy? >> she showed she could be an excellent mother and supportive wife and be inclusive and welcome in anybody regardless of social strata into the white house. she did not bend to the women of -- the winds of society. she did not change her looks. she did not change her style. she showed a woman could be a woman on her own. >> was she transformational or transitional? >> transitional. what should her legacy be?>> i think people need to understand the cards it takes to hold -- the courage it takes to hold that position. she brought her own memories and love of country into this as well as support and respect for her husband. >> our thanks to the great folks

at the rutherford b. hayes you can visit the presidential center if you are in northwestern ohio. fremont, ohio is where it is based. folks at the white house association for their continuing help will stop -- help. that is our look tonight at the life and times of lucy hayes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> tomorrow night, in first ladies -- >> james garfield went to nominate someone else for president. lucretia garfield had no idea that somewhere between 17,000 and 20,000 people would show up at her property. people, obviously, unexpected, uninvited, started to cause a lot of damage. we know lucretia garfield was a gracious host of people who came to the home. she often would greet them in the front hallway and offer

them, during the campaign, what she called standing refreshment. for a fewtalk to them moments, offer them cold water or lemonade. conspicuously, no chairs were brought in, because she did not want them to overstay their welcome. >> 9:00 eastern tomorrow night. few moments, a forum on the state of al qaeda operations and threats. in an hour and a half, we will rerun the program on lucy hayes. series looks at town hall meetings held by members of congress. several live events to tell you about tomorrow. a panel on the state of the economy. that is at 9:00 a.m. eastern. panelists include the former chairman of [indiscernible]

marking the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. speakers include columnist clarence page and a panel of low-wage food service workers. and the democratic candidates in the new york city mayoral debate. the debate is starting at 7:00. now, a forum on the state of al qaeda operations and threats. the foundation for the defense of democracies hosts this 90 minute discussion, that includes a look at the relationship between the muslim brotherhood and al qaeda. >> i think we will get started.

it is 12:00. we have a full house. welcome. . am clifford may we welcome you to this discussion on al qaeda. we look forward to hearing from you lie like -- from eli lake. correspondent for "newsweek" and "the daily beast." and thomas joslin, senior fellow at fdd. if you have not read the journal , i highly commend it to you. we like to say-- that we start with principals and focus on research and policy. we try to achieve real progress. those who are affiliated in various capacities do not agree with everything. good debates.e we do all the time around here. but we agree on fundamental points.

one is that nobody should be denied basic human rights, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. no one should be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, or creed. free democratic nations have a right to defend themselves and an obligation to defend one another. we think terrorism should be simply defined as violence against civilians for political purposes. it is always wrong, and under no circumstances should the condoned. so, the past year or influential, respected voices within foreign-policy and national security communities have asserted that al qaeda now is defeated, is on the path to defeat, is on it's heels, and has been decimated. those assertions have been called into question any number of times. recently,ly, and most

those assertions of al qaeda' and demise were called into question by the u.s. decision to close 22 the traumatic facilities in 17 different countries across north africa, the middle east, and parts of asia. rogan shedd josh more light on the situation when they reported that the reason for the closure was intercepted them fromions, among more than 20 al qaeda operatives in far-flung locations. the report noted that this communication was apparently led one, andda's number also included on the call was the head of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, recently named general manager. others havend

followed these issues closely, and independently confirmed eli's report. what does this tell us about the state of al qaeda today, both its periphery and its core? toill start by asking eli grapple with that question for five minutes. and ask somete questions, and then let you ask questions as well. thank you again for being here. thank you, tom. this session is on the record. may i ask, if you have phones that beep, please turn them off or put them on vibrate. >> thank you for having me. i should say that as we speak, there will be a news story on the communication. i can now give a little more details about what exactly happened. earlier this summer, you many -- emeni authorities were able to

apprehend a carrier for al qaeda as he was uploading minutes to what appeared to be an important business meeting of the council. when he was identified from the communication, the u.s. basically discovered a treasure trove, which was a recording of a seven hour remote internet conference. this included video, voice, as well as chat, and opened with a .essage by the leader he basically said, his assessment strategically is the united states is in a similar position to the soviet union in 1989, and it was important for jihadist's to take advantage. and he announced the big promotion for the head of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. prettyat seven hours, he much disappears and comes back at various points.

there is debate in the intelligence community as to whether or not so what here he he was participating directly, or giving a video in real time to a carrier, and monitoring remotely. most of what we understand about the internet and communication security of osama bin laden is, he would not be online in direct communication. he shows up at various points. there is a suggestion that he was indeed in the conversation. people have asked us, why would you report all these details? our sources have made it clear that when the leader who reported the communications -- it was enough information for al qaeda to walk back the cat.

we left out some details from our initial report. believe,oint, we especially since our sources were giving us this information, that it was important to explain the current context of threats. point, i think it is a tough one. cannot argue with the fact that u.s. special operations forces in 2011 found osama bin laden and killed him. that was a huge blow to the organization. that, years leading up to a lot of analysts believe that bin laden was out of touch. they figured he did not play a day-to-day role. the organization has devolved into affiliates. one of the stories i remember writing after the raid -- bin laden played an important role in terms of managing this organization with these various affiliates, inspiring affiliates. we are sort of in the same situation now.

there is no doubt about it. al qaeda has lost a lot of senior leaders in pakistan. a very lethal drone war. however, they have adapted. has shown an ability to manage and delegate. in that respect, we shut down these embassies and the threat alert has been significant. i think that shows that while there have been victories, at least the threat of al qaeda is far from over at this point. you, tom.go to i am sure i do not need to ask you questions. but this concept of the core and the periphery. there was the idea that al qaeda was defeated, was dead, which we heard from prominent voices. there was a second theory that it is not dead, but the core is so diminished it cannot operate. periphery,st the satellite organizations that do not have a lot of clout. despite theow that

drone wars, which have been effective, the core has been able to remain robust and in control, and fairly powerful in addition to the periphery. >> if you leave here sick today, i apologize. the perils of having a three- year-old and a one-year-old. i attract every virus in the state of new york. i apologize in advance. the whole core and affiliate's, that whole idea, is something we have been knocking down for months before the closures. i testified before congress, saying this has not and well defined. the idea of the al qaeda core is not well defined. you do not have u.s. officials defining with precision who is and is not in the core.

it refers to the overall al qaeda leader and advisory councils, and sort of lieutenants around him in pakistan and afghanistan, that area. a you think about it for second, you realize that al qaeda is not so stupid as to keep all their core members in one locale. they are not going to sit and wait for us to drone them to death. they are going to disburse assets. the first example i provided as a counterpoint to the hard-line distinction between core and affiliates was the head of the al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. he is appointed to general manager, a core function. he is not in afghanistan and pakistan. he is in yemen, and he is the general manager of the organization. when you look at that position and what that does, that is a very important position in al qaeda. somebody who has, according to

the few documents we have seen declassified, has a very important role in managing international operations. he is doing that from yemen. to why so many people got it wrong -- i think that when you worldack at the post 9/11 , going back to the bush administration, assessments consistently get it wrong in terms of understanding al qaeda. a big reason for that is, we define it pretty narrowly as a terrorist threat against us, the west. that is principally what we are concerned about, although that is not their strategic goal. attacking the west is sort of a tactic in their broader game. when you look at their literature, their leadership throughout time, they define themselves as political revolutionaries. they want political power for themselves in the greater middle east. at times, it looks absurd. you look at the chessboard of what is going on. other times, they have more success than we credit them for.

that is principally what they are doing. we would argue that at this point in history they have made remarkable gains that way. on said number 11, 2001, al qaeda did not have a small army in syria. they do today. they did not have to have france intervene in mali. have aa in iraq did not thriving islamic state. they do today. again thelenging iraqi government, and spreading. you can go on and on like this. foremen, they challenged territory and control parts of southern yemen. in somalia, they have an established affiliate which they did not have on 9/11. look at the broader picture and the political game al qaeda is playing, it is a cohesive international challenge. it is not something we can just connect the dots with, and save this group is not al qaeda, and

this group is not al qaeda, when they are clearly loyal and advancing and writing for al qaeda strategic goals. basically, when you ask why it is that i think so many analysts have gotten it wrong over time, it is because the focus is narrowly on this idea of a group of super terrorists in pakistan, playing these plots against us. and if they are not part of that, they are not furthering al qaeda objectives. everything we have seen says that is wrong. you can see that most of al qaeda's assets through the years have been devoted to other things. >> a few questions. i will start with this. showtly on wolf blitzer's with peter bergen -- he has continued to maintain that al qaeda is defeated or severely diminished. in support of that argument, he would say on 9/11, 3000 americans were killed. they have not done anything like that again.

they cannot do anything like that again. are not thehey organization they once were and my thesis remains correct. do you want to address that? >> to his credit, you are seeing his views evolve. he basically defined al qaeda the way i just did, which is that the principal strategic goal was playing to established islamic states elsewhere. if that is the principal strategic goal, and it is indisputable they have made further gains than at any time in their history. it is true. if you think about the massive amount of effort that has been spent to try to disrupt their plots against us, the massive amount of controversial efforts across the board, not just in the united states, but with our european allies -- a massive amount of pressure. it has taken all of that to contain another 9/11 style attack. , theirthink about it inability to carry out something

like that again -- that is because we have raised our defenses, often clumsily, but sometimes very necessarily. when we were asleep, they had problems. byy were detained or marked the cia beforehand. it is not easy to carry out this style of mass casualty attack, the way they want to do it. if we set the bar there, and say that because they are not able to carry on 9/11 style attacks, they are done, that ignores so much of the picture, and the evolving threat streams coming our way. >> a new question. puzzles a lot of people. it does puzzle me as well. we have events taking place in egypt. also a here he -- i zawahiri'she -- al-

brother being arrested. it is a little confusing, the current state of the relationship between the muslim brotherhood organizations and the various al qaeda groups. when al nasser -- that was the end of the more radical version of the muslim brotherhood in a lot of ways. the muslim brotherhood that emerged after word was very accommodating with the state. they were allowed to organize openly in universities. ae muslim brotherhood became big part of the fabric of civil society. in 2005,ved in egypt 2006, a big story was that a muslim brotherhood member was, for the first time, president of the american university in cairo.

they were in charge of the medical association. the association of newspaper journalists. this is an important distinction. islamists like the muslim that overd believes time they can accomplish the goal of having an islamic republic are participating directly in politics, and issuing terroristic violence. by this, they were scorned the egyptian islamic jihad, groups responsible for the attacks, and later by al- zawahiri. there is a famous exchange of someone in egyptian jail, who eventually recanted a lot of support for terror. there is a famous line of al- the fax responding that machine you used has the same parent as the machine used to electrocute you when you were tortured. there is a long-standing

disagreement between the al qaeda side and the muslim brotherhood side. events as they transpire, and i do not have any special insight into what happens next, one could argue, from the perspective -- you won on election. you issued violence. you were disciplined all these years. the military still removed you from power and is still making martyrs of your followers. perhaps i could be a very instructive lesson. revolutionarye path. the events in egypt, the risk of coup, runs the driving the muslim brotherhood back to where they were in the middle of the 20th century, an underground organization capable of terrorism. bolstering the more ideological ranks of the al qaeda side of that debate. >> this is like a whole other

panel. the answer varies country to country. could find the muslim brotherhood are accommodating of the japanese -- jihadis. they are against them. it is a complex topic. i think the bottom-line is -- you mentioned mohammed also a zawahiri, the- brother. criticized this version of sharia law. he was harsh and critical of the brotherhood. at other times, he did not want to side against the brotherhood with the military. style of qaeda participating in elections. unfortunately, i saw it as, they were smart enough to play the tactical game.

>> it is dangerous to draw very broad conclusions. the simple conclusion -- you have made this in your writing for a long time. rivalriesces and the are much more fluid than we would think. there is a lot less sentimentality engaged in it all stop -- in it. >> there is bad blood. i have talked to them. there is a sense from the illegal islamist parties -- the muslim brotherhood not only were sellouts. they were collaborationist. about cooperation between egyptian authorities and the muslim brotherhood's. the more radical groups, when there were terror threats -- >> i will ask one or two questions, and then go to you. signal me if you want to ask a question. someone will come by with a microphone.

>> it is interesting. there is a whole history. there was a book with very negative things said about the brotherhood. it is interesting to track his rhetoric over time. video,ar, he released a basically saying al qaeda can coexist with the muslim brotherhood. according to my sources, he was reading excerpts from osama bin laden's diaries. the was disagreement over how to conduct a hot in afghanistan between the brotherhood, which was sponsoring its own troops in the region, and al qaeda. he is critical of their participation in elections and those sort of things. , osama bin laden -- one document is interesting, written the week before he was killed. bin laden talks about -- he was reiterating, saying the world is going our way. of peopleot of hope

attacking their way across the arab spring world. that has been discounted wrongly numerous times by american analysts. thereit wrong to say -- was a discussion of the muslim brotherhood issuing violence. that suggests they find violence repugnant. as opposed to strategically, they do not see it as useful. has there been that confusion in the intelligence community? because you are not participating in violence today, it means you have renounced it as principal? >> they renounced violence inside egypt after getting their heads kicked in. they did not renounce violence through hamas, which is a movement the brotherhood spawned tom a with a suicide bombing campaign in the 1990's. we see violence against american soldiers. you can go through a whole list. there are brotherhood figures in

yemen, for example. there are big supporters of al qaeda. a leader in sudan was a big supporter of al qaeda, and a muslim brother. >> the movement does not renounce violence against infidels. >> the shake on al jazeera arabic -- the sheik on al jazeera arabic does not renounce violence. >> it is significant that you have to take into account the muslim brotherhood in egypt in the later part of the 20th century. it is an important distinction. most of the 20th century, they were a major violent threat. >> let me drill down on this a little bit. we talk about the egyptian muslim brotherhood renouncing violence. what we have just seen, it seems to me -- "the new york times" ran an op-ed talking about the peaceful protesters.

there were others who were carrying machine guns, automatic weapons, burning churches, humiliating nuns. that does not fit the definition of peaceful. >> i am trying to unwind all those reports. the problem is, there is so much -- i mean, there is so much incentive to blame various groups at this point. it is tough to tell what really is at this point. it is just a blended -- a bloody mess. >> on the conference call, for want of a better word -- two things. was it high-tech? is this something where you say there was an i.t. guy that came in? was it sophisticated? .> the i.t. guy is a son-in-law he is in charge of the technical committee in al qaeda. they have engineers.

they have their own encryption software. they have proprietary technology that allows them to have these kinds of remote conferences that allow for video. it is pretty amazing stuff. it is advanced. the global islamic media -- they also have other sites. allow people to kind of communicate with the mother ship in certain respects. they are constantly aware of internet security. no one is allowed to use any kind of broadcasting. a constant cat and mouse game. somehave been doing

pretty impressive technology, from what i have heard. >> yes. he mentioned a new peas is up right now. read that to understand better how the situation evolved. when eli and jock just josh -- they that is not the way do things. we heard the same thing quickly that this was complicated, high- tech, and i understand how -- why they use that phrase, but, you can look at other reporting and tell the most important point out of all of this, in touch with not just one guy, but a couple dozen or so senior al qaeda operatives. ,t is not someone disassociated but someone very much involved. , were there this

any groups on there that surprised you or any groups we should think about that we have not been? there is a collection we have written about and you have written about for a while, that i think are significant. they are not formerly considered affiliates. would say thing i about that is they have a process for who is formally affiliated in who is not. groups like shabbat in somalia -- accepted by al qaeda before the coming-out party. there is is a whole game they play in terms of who they recognize publicly. >> are there differences in sophistication among groups? where they were on the globe,

to. are there differences? >> there are disagreements voiced among the different groups in terms of where they should and shouldn't be. >> affiliates disagree with the .ore, al qaeda and iraq he leads a -- an incredibly sadistic and violent campaign against civilians. the personal secretary of bin laden, he -- [indiscernible] he appealed -- appears as a loose cannon. does not mean there is unanimity there. i think it shows there are protocols, not just in terms of communication. there is protocol when you

establish a new kind of rant, what committees you have, how you should look at enforcing islamic law and punish people. all stuff that is basically out there. >> some people say that is the franchise model where you have construction and then you go ahead and do it yourself or it it is a vague organization and is ill managed by a sure counsel. >> i am happy to go to questions here. there is a question in the back. if you would wait for the microphone, and then identify yours elf. >> the senate foreign relations committee. i would like to hear more from you guys. , we are looking 10 years in advance. we he a little bit of a shift back.

it shifts more when osama bin laden took over in 9/11. they can together and shared the same ideology area are we seeing , [indiscernible] a little bit about technology, are we going to see more about cyber wars that will try to develop? >> we have seen a shift in how the fed operates in different countries. the mistake is to say that is not part of their global design. let me give you a case in point in yemen. a political platform was instituted.

basically, this was the attempt to try to rebrand themselves and say, we can provide governance in basic service to you and basically adopting parts of the has law and green and set -- ourselves in the community. the associated press came out recently talking about all this and the prime focus was how to build a skate in yemen. as he is doing that and he is evolving politically, trying to figure out a new way forward for his organization. they are concerned -- concurrent with that. -- of the key affiliates they are basically able to walk and chew gum at the same time. if you look country by country, even with the front and i'll -- in syria, the groups in north africa, you can see more of this

where they are trying to provide basic levels of services and provide themselves as an alternative model to the existent government. >> among al qaeda experts and analysts i spoke with at the time, you saw hard-core groups that were clearly in sympathy with al qaeda's larger ideology. i thinkd earlier, their participation in those politics coming to an end before our eyes. arrests.rious i would imagine this could lead to a reassessment. according to this latest information the u.s. government is receiving, i do not think it will dial back the terrorism side of things. i think walking and chewing gum at the same time.

>>. other questions here? , have yould like asked questions. we have been tough on the community. give credit where credit is due. the 9/11 committee was pretty good on these things and four saw a lot of what is happening. describe that and give credit? >> yes. there are good pages, we are acting now today like the affiliates are something the al qaeda stumbled upon. that they just happened upon this. not all the affiliates were pre- .aned -- pre-planned a long parthas been

of the strategy going back to , tolate teen 90's basically so their seeds in these other nations. very good language about how bin laden saw himself and al qaeda in the role. he was going to leave -- lead-in islamic army and there were all groups that would basically spread al qaeda's ideology platform and operational ties across a huge array of companies. i had a list in my congressional record company. all these countries were identified. it is staggering. from north africa all the way through to the middle east. some of the groups, some -- it is part of a long-term plan they had for establishing the presence in these nations. that waxed and waned and it had its ups and downs but it is something they thought about for a long time.

it goes to the heart of the al qaeda core. a firm line between the core and these affiliates. i think that is not true. >> i would also stress organizations like al qaeda, they are very alarmed by the threat and they understand there are other elements that do not have operational control. there are a lot of times where it depends on what the white house at any even moment thinks of these. you rarely get any ink reaching a kind of across-the-board consensus worth anything. it is one of my personal things national intelligence estimates are largely worthless. it dumbs down everything to the , and like things that do not tell us anything. in the world of intelligence analysis, there are people who assign percentages to what they

think will happen. there are usually vigorous disagreements. >> the first thing on that is absolutely right. al qaeda does not have a bunch of automatons. they have personalities, conflicts, and there are sorts -- all sorts of commanders. it does not take away from what i think overall achievements. ultra -- al qaeda's organizations have significant dissents. even on 9/11. that is the type of level of organization. there is a large degree of coordination and cohesiveness on the whole threat. it does not mean they are automatons toured >> right. i was saying is that at the end of the day, there is a narrative that is often

oversimplified that will be embraced by the president and his top national security advisers and members of congress and aced on that understanding, the narrative of what we do and do not face, how serious it is, and whether it is motivated by religion, ambition, grievances, on that basis, policies in response are formulated. if it is a misunderstanding of the situation, chances are, the policies will be flawed as well. have seen with obama, this is the line i came up with, i think president obama acts like an executive. he has really pushed a lot of the war and expanded a lot of the global war on terror that has done it through secret operations. a little bit under a year and a a notification

to congress, yes, we are doing counterterrorism activity. and then nothing else. these are complicated partnerships and almost secret the conducted entirely at classification level. obama has done a lot of that and does not really talk about it erie it he has chosen to wage war in secret. the thing about doing these things under so much secrecy is ,hat, just as you can expand you can also take it away and not have much of a debate, either. a lot of trust right now in the executive ranch, and maybe there has to be. i am not saying i know the answer here. the way that obama has

approached this is he has done quite a bit in a lot of these places, including somalia. the warade it appear is winding down. , will thatn is translates into winding down secret operations he has continued? ,> what you are saying is true however, i would say it differently. he is doing this in a counterterrorism paradigm. the big debate. counterterrorism versus counterterrorism. what happened was, obama has gone back and forth. he said, we will invest more in afghanistan, but only for 18 months, and who knows what will happen after that? buildups been a large

in putting our chips in the counterterrorism bucket. then point to where mistakes were in the bush administration, too. the problem i have is if you look at the history of iraq, you can see where this has failed. go back to 2010. , andhe -- senior generals you say, we have wiped them out. two thirds of our leaders are gone. what happens? u.s. forces pull out of iraq. what happens, a larger affiliate in serious bond. now challenging for territory, controlling parts of syria, from early 2012 to october 2012, has basically exploded in violence. the pure counterterrorism model, you can say, we have got all these leaders, but what happened? they were able to regenerate because they were thinking in

terms of the top-down hierarchy and knock off the top of it. that is my big fear, that we are now going back to a pure model that does not work. it gets confiscated from there about how you actually do this. i do not know what the answer is. all of these partnerships, and it is incredibly complicated. i do not claim to know everything. ofnote of hesitation on all this is, we have seen tactics for and they have failed before and that is why am i -- i am worried. >> i do not know. i do not know -- i do not have a clear opinion. counterinsurgency requires a lot of people on the ground and a lot of attention. does the united states have the , to do theesources kinds of counterinsurgency ?perations at this point, politically, my

sense is the answer is no. i do not know if it is a real option. >> there are two separates subjects. one is to say, whether or not you understand what is going on in iraq tom but you understand it is not a war that can go down, remain there for sometime if you want to establish and prevent the rebirth of al qaeda and iraq. wantyou decide we do not al qaeda to reemerge, then the question is, what do we do about it? the first thing is to understand there will be a threat there if we leave. our weird -- are we ok with that? that is what the understanding of the situation is vital to the formulation of policy.

>> there should be a fibrin debate about how to address all of these things. i do not have all the answers. there is not a large appetite. our enemy gets to stay in the fight. they are defining how they want to move forward. if we keep defining them narrowly as terrorist's, we will pick off commanders here and there. they are not just terrorists. multiple assets are put into acquiring that around the world. their political ideology, i think is largely rejected by most people in the muslim world. the evidence of this, i am very skeptical of polls in the middle east. the evidence of this is they have to have violent thugs enforcing lunatic sharia law in

the area they have taken over. if this were a popular idea, they reflect what the craun wishes, stuff they were doing in iraq, then, they would not . >> io cut off the hands think that mistakes -- part of the reason i defined this way, here is the thing. if there is such an automatic rejection, why were they able to take over two thirds of somalia so they still did it. they control parts of libya right now. portions ofer large yemen. the u.n. report that came out in july said there is still control. yes, they are not the most popular brand in the full

muslim world, and there is a ,uge potential problem for them absolutely. despite that, they are still able to keep coming forward and that is the problem. >> i do not think they can deal with the modern world. if they can do it in a remote area -- >> we will see. [indiscernible] >> center for american progress. how do you see out qaeda and its affiliates in iran over the last 10 years? iraq, syria, in opposition to it, in sudan, maybe something different. how do you see a ran looking at this? we often discuss it from the u.s. perspective, as we should, but it is complicated. i want to hear your thoughts.

>> that is a good question. the other question is how iran andooking upon all of this though rivalry and collaboration. >> a couple data points. al qaeda leaders fled to pakistan from afghanistan after 9/11. some led to iran. sam -- including family members. waslieve the arrangement something like a medieval hostage. ,ran, ideas that i do not think will collaborate in a strategic level the way they do in syria with iran. having the leverage they did, i think it was an insurance other sunnis in these kinds of debates. in the 1990's, there were the

taliban murdered diplomats and it was a pretty big deal. i ran after 9/11 did cooperate at times although they did other stuff, too, within afghanistan after 9/11. that said, you can also see there are two rival cartels or rival mafias. they have an interest in making .ure the f b i is weak it is possible they could be competitors, which they certainly are. theologically very different. al qaeda considers shiism to be very much a deviation of the true faith. that said, they have and can cooperate when they have an advantage of doing so. there were some degrees of cooperation for example in iran. >> this is another one of those

questions that could use a home other panel to discuss. is a huge serious disagreement between the two. a major problem, a bigger wedge between the two. you see coming out of al qaeda's leaders, and t islamic rhetoric coming out of syria. the one thing i have marveled that since the early 1990's is how many times iran has managed to put aside their differences without qaeda. al qaeda never wanted to be controlled by any state. .hey are a revolutionary force however, iran has managed to work with them in a variety of ways going back to the 1990's. one of the interesting things to come out of the obama administration state departments are a series of designations and other public pronouncements about the actual deal or agreement in iran today.

go back to july 2011 and highlight the secret deal between iran and al qaeda. a december 2011, they issued $10 million reward. in february, 2012, they came out with a designation of ministry, saying they had been served -- providing support to al qaeda. in october 2012, another comes out in the obama administration. there is a network in iran led by one of the guys who actually had for my lunch -- foreknowledge of 9/11. it is one of the things you joke about when you see the , and inces between them do not have time to get into it today, but there is a whole two.ry here between the it is really fascinating to

explore. >> take the mic son and introduce yourself. to follow-up on your iranian if we see fighting iranian proxies in syria, at what point will we witness the strategic, long-term conflict between the sunni extremist and the iranians, or the satellite throughout the region? the winterquestion, olympics, and the statement by of the caucuses, that it is a fair target, and also recalling his earlier commitment not to attack civilians in the russian territory. he stated his allegiance of

support of al qaeda many times. it is very much along the lines -- to what extent do you see al ? eda -- their resources >> do you want me to go? >> i do not know. [laughter] they targeted the olympics before. who had to flag somebody they thought may have been planning terrorist attacks. there is always tension for these big public events. it is interesting.

i have tracked some of the rhetoric. from others who were there calling for attacks for shiite controlled states following what was going on in syria. you see the rhetoric. there are parties which to me look like they may be in the al qaeda sphere. to go back to how the relationships evolve, it is fascinating to watch how in ,988, the taliban slaughtered and yet they came to a deal before 9/11. to cut a deal with those who will cooperate. those types of things happen. these guys are willing to put aside the deep animosity and hatred, and the big problem i have is we do not know when it will tip. it could be they have butgreements in one third

agreements in the other two thirds, but we do not know. >> other questions appear? -- up here? you cannot run any kind of affiliation [indiscernible] to what extent does the al qaeda ? >> itrange for funding is reversed. you have to kick up the tribute if you are a -- an affiliate. [indiscernible] fromtrafficking afghanistan. there are criminal organizations and may have way of making money when the state is weak. >> yes. the taliban does not sequester. >>) exactly.

it changes from area to area how they operate. ,idnappings to drug dealings trafficking cigarettes, he who launched the attack in january on the oil facility. the commander connected to benghazi, he was the guy known marlboro.bury -- mr. >> the most divided force is an al qaeda affiliated force. there are two. they are in fairly vigorous competition. tell me how that plays out. there are leadership

disagreements between the two answer -- that circles down between the ranks. one of the interesting things, again, our model of al qaeda, these types of rivalries do occur. this was an intense one. it manifests it self in many new ways. however, when you look operationally, there are differences, but they still managed to play on the same side against common enemies. it is not something when they have yet turned the gun on each other. the muslim brotherhood relate to al qaeda forces in syria? >> at the operational level, i do not know. part of the big fear in the syrian muslim brotherhood is an organization some of the leaders who returned to syria have been

known to have ties to al qaeda. they have evolved. if you look at the leadership for 9/11, or the leadership of all were onceain, syrian brothers. i am not saying all the syrian muslim brotherhood is, but i do not know today. .> there are real divisions >> i do not have the ability to .omment >> any final questions from any youou? if not, i will ask to think about what we should've talked about, should have asked, in your last few minutes here. .> i am an intern

my question is about the resolution, 2001. .> the use of military force >> that gave the president broader use of force, individuals, individuals who planned 9/11. so, from then on, and for the last more than a decade, this .as been used it is now the time to reveal this joint resolution? >> i read about this for a recent magazine a few years back. my view is that there is a risk the war on terror could become permanent if you never revisit

the question of what the extraordinary powers we want the government to use to fight terrorism. i am under the view it as a fairly long war. it is not like they invented these threats and they like having global war. trying to dodge the question. i think it is a good question. the courts have ruled over the years that the original would affiliated al qaeda groups. i am sure it was expanded in one thehe recent bills president signed into thousand 11 and 2012 to include some of the groups that various courts have rolled because of what could be counted under that resolution. listen. there is a huge problem, not to get too far off topic, when you look at what has been problematic about the recent nsa disclosures we have been

learning about, if you do not have members of congress, american people, knowing about what the government is doing, then, you do risk the sense this will be the kind of permanent war that will never end and you will never be able to grapple and that will create a bureaucracy. if you were to say we should , then you would effectively be saying, you do not think there is currently a war. the enemy gets a vote. they are voting they are still in war with us. that is where i am at. >> let me throw into the discussion i am sure president obama discussed, before the diplomatic outpost closing, that the author -- authorizations for the use of military force, they should consider repealing it.

rebuilding it would be based on the narrative the war is winding down and al qaeda is being defeated. if we agree that is incorrect, then we also agree you need some kind of authorization for the u.s. to fight that were. .> that is right it is one of the things that can and should be properly debated. what authority we want to give the president and the executive branch, for sure. i have seen out there is the idea -- i think the president's rhetoric in the regard is not helpful, the idea that the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is defeated and therefore the logical implication of that is, it is based on the reaction to 9/11, needherefore, we do not

the a you mf. that is not consistent with the real threat environment. what we have seen, yes, they have not been successful. back in 2009, there was a serious plot against new york by alubways launched qaeda that did not involve specific actors involved in 9/11, but it was al qaeda. , december may 2010 2009 where they try to blow up a plane and in 2010, they tried to detonate bombs. the point is, the current stream you see is not something narrowly defined as a few actors in pakistan we need. you can see it's manifesting itself in different ways. >> we are back there. graduate student, american university. you just mentioned the success

of the drum programming targeting al qaeda. given the president's recent statement about the drone program, can you talk about the prudence of signature strikes? >> let me know about signature strikes is that they are imprecise. you do not know a person will be there and usually, you never have exact intelligence. there is something very disturbing about the u.s., the for the foreseeable future, the united states would have drones over the countries and we will occasionally do these sorts of things. reallye technology was developed in the last decade, and the targeting was developed, the ability to pinpoint, in nanoseconds, various kinds of targets, it really did turn the tide of war in iraq.

it was very significant. i do not think we had much of a conversation about what it means to do that. what does it mean if we do it for 20 years? eventually, are there other implications of having a permanent drone presence in pakistan that would make -- potentially radicalize others? i usually avoid that analysis because the radicalization process is detailed and to become a suicide bomber terrorist, is not because they watched a television show. it certainly creates an environment where we have a political environment in pakistan right now that hate the united states. that is significant about whether or not they will allow their armed services to cooperate or whether they will really actually be on al qaeda's side because they have more sympathy with the islamists. do you think there are

elements of the intelligence and military bureaucracy? >> pakistan, never. [laughter] >> the only thing i would say thef you saw in june, commission report was leaked. i thought the report was fascinating. what they basically said was, and this is in pakistan, two weeks before he was going to write for us, he was kidnapped and tortured to death for asking these questions, he was a shady character and a complicated guy, but somebody who had ties to these folks. a very dangerous environment to ask the questions. but they did ask the questions. "we cannot answer them.

however, there is this whole coulter in pakistan where all the jihadist groups that were either created or founded or sponsored by military intelligence, on the one hand, also have ties and relationships to al qaeda on the other. to havees it very easy these senior figures hiding in t areas. a lot of cia veterans still believe guys in charge at the time were american allies. it has been shown many of those people took al qaeda's side in

the current situation more than 30 years later. so, the u.s., in the last decade, be in creating an supposed to bes the guys that would really be on our side. have a history. i just think, it is almost when you do something, in the case of the afghanistan war, an important theref the soviet union, were implications of that down the line. , and certainly pakistan as well and the military as well. not all on the u.s.. in a lot of cases, i think these organizations, you do not i anybody in these parts of the world. you only rent them.

>> in the network, about to be loyal outcries, there was a great recent book that came out, the nexus of global jihad, or like that, i forget the exact title. there was a really good book which talks about the fact that they worked at a time where there was a conduit for american and other allied support for soviets, very explicitly in the region, physically endorsing the message bin laden would be so famous for kerry -- carrying forward. >> a microphone to you right away. >> thank you. homeland security committee. clarification on the question of the administration's narrative. , it isaring you say actress of the policy that

follows is also accurate. what i -- i am also hearing you say the narrative does not necessarily match what is going on in terms of conducting the secret wars. the clarification i am looking we have- do you think two separate narratives? one for the general public that is leading us to believe things are winding down and we have made significant progress, and then one toward the administration itself, the real story, or do you think -- it just seems there is a disconnect and i was wondering if you would address that. >> there is a disconnect. it is not exact. they have also moderated -- moderated what they say. there was a time where they did not acknowledge the peninsula as a serious threat. then, after the christmas day armor, they realized it was a major problem.

you hear rhetoric and things were done secretly. it is not always necessarily done a clean point. i would say generally, they claim political credit. killing bin laden is a major victory. i do not want to say that is insignificant. , jay carneyo say will say, we think al qaeda is decimated. there is this way -- i think easy to expand the secret war and it is also easy to wind down a secret work. much easier if you had more input from congress and it was a more open and public debate kerry >> my main concern is that they may believe the public obama'se, the, national security defense speech in may. i am worried about that because that is how you get caught flat-

footed. you believe things are winding down and ending. after the fat, you respond after he becomes a threat to the u.s. homeland. beforehand, they were a threat. you should be able to see that before hand. it is the tactical running around. that -- the main problem i have with that is you stop communicating to the american people what the ideological challenge is for us and what the terror network really looks like and what they are doing to build support to do whatever we need to do in long-term. that is my main fear. thatwill make one point may be useful. in 1943, roosevelt and churchill got together. they can see they would defeat the german, japanese, and italian militaries. they made a decision clearly that they would not try to defeat or destroy the populations of germany, japan, or italy.

what they decided they needed to do was to destroy and to feed the philosophy is, which would call ideology today, that had animated -- that were responsible for world war ii. when we talk about violent extremism, and we do not grapple with the ideologies behind the regime and the movements and groups attacking the west, we are not taking up the task, discredits -- legitimizing the ideologies. we went and continued long after the were to delegitimize and discredit the ideologies that remained in japan for a very long time. and some would say went too far to the point where very few university students nowadays study fascist ideology to tell

you what a fascist ideology is. they might know communism but they probably would not know fascism. by speaking about extremism as a rational, rather than a very coherent ideology that aims the conquest and subjugation of people, [indiscernible] >> here is how i look at it. at one point, president bush came out and said we have killed or captured three quarters of a qaeda leaders. the implication was, we have really got them on their heels and they are almost done. two years later, president obama says we have killed or captured three quarters of al qaeda senior leaders. we are still talking about al qaeda and the threat. it isn't is defined. misdefined.ed as

properlyreally defined the scope of their ideologies in the first place. a lot of reasons for that. if you do not define it correctly, we can have disagreements about how to counter it. i think you are leaving yourself last -- flat-footed unless you properly define it. >> ok, a question back there. let's go back there. >> thank you. >> i had a question. ofuld there be some sort investigation or something to find the relationship between the muslim that iood and al qaeda, reported on fox news last week, that egyptian security forces,

and now, the name of the assassin, ambassador chris it is deathly -- worth an investigation. of a seriousbility connection between the muslim brotherhood and al qaeda. almost issued a video the past he almostwhere incited genocide against rigid shin and military and christians and infidels, but, at the same time, he announced his full support for the muslim brotherhood organization and he also stated that osama bin laden himself has been a member of the organization and he only left because of logistics issues regarding funding and .mbarrassment

there are numerous evidences. thelso have evidence dissertation, written in the 70's, he stated he was actually writing the theological foundations for al qaeda's organization. he is considered the spiritual leader of the brotherhood. ,here is numerous evidence because the possibility of designating the muslim brotherhood as an international terrorist organization should definitely be out there. thank you. >> we love to have your opinions. >> well, this is a large topic he is not the spiritual

guide or leader for the muslim brotherhood. president morsi expressed his theyduring a speech that would be free, because that is a popular sentiment we have seen throughout egypt. dismiss thenot to issue entirely. we should be careful about it. , one of the first years by al qaeda was designated by the bush administration, a senior figure, thought to be delisted by the u.n. in the u.s.. there was a documentary by two newsweek journalists back in the day, about the whole brotherhood and the continuum between the president and al qaeda. it is a very complex tar -- topic. it is fine by me. it is a very large, complex topic. >> there is a difference.

i think recently, there has been a difference between the egyptian rather than what they do and think versus the al qaeda. i think, we can talk about the distinction and say, there are some commonalities at times in terms of political goals. also, the muslim brotherhood has been more accommodating in its own way. >> in one of his last leather's -- letter he ever wrote, he referred to the muslim brotherhood as an absolution. he was pleased with the new islamic regimes that would provide new art duties for al qaedaalso, the muslim brotherhog new recruits. it is not a zero solution but not a full solution. that sums it up about how they

see things. there are differences, but also commonality. >> ok. >> i think trying to tie muslim brotherhood and al qaeda good foris not recognizing muslim brotherhood as a threat. to really take a solid look at the organization manifested in the election and evidence that was clearly stated in the sermon on the anniversary a few months later. certainly subtle in the way he presented it. it wasn't on equal cold call to arms in my view. what are your thoughts -- call to arms in my view. >> sort of, who they are and how

the things work, i do not find them to be eight peaceful organization. i can point to two -- too many instances. the general point about the political distinction, we do not want to watch that away and get into a reductionist narrative that they are all all qaeda, when they are not. your point that there is an independent analysis to be done about what a threat is and is not, i think that is right. >> was aback to 1991, there slogan, one man, one time. crushedrian state -- with a believe was the potential for an islamic political takeover in their country that to an insurgency in the country in the 1990's that was very bloody.

prepared toam not make judgments at this point. there is still a lot we do not entirely no. it is fair to say there was a clear effort by morsi to consolidate power, to put his people and support ministries, pushsically railroad -- to out any other dissent from the constitution writing process. there are a series of things morsi did before the coup that were disturbing and at least -- it is fair to say there was a real danger. a certain sense, you can say al qaeda and the muslim brotherhood are not the same. there are important distinctions. nonetheless, muslim brotherhood ideology is navy not compatible, as many of us hoped -- maybe -- maybe not compatible, as

many of us hoped. i am leading to the view that put ago islam is not really compatible with open society, even if proponents of that -- tical islam you are saying here is there is an analytical danger. one is you conflate all is longest groups and the other is you begin to make distinctions and engage in the kind of theyul thinking -- since are distinct, there must be some that are not just pragmatic, but moderate. if they are moderate, we can engage with them. then we can have a reasonable relationship with them. that is necessarily true. you can distinguish among these, understand the difference, without believing you have an

opportunity for peaceful coexistence. >> yes. it needs to be a granular assessment of each of the groups and how they operate. a very fascinating, small nation, we have an offshoot of the brotherhood, sort of standoff with the al qaeda organization, and there is very interesting attention there. there are other areas where they included some press reports. not really clear. in every situation, you have to be careful. the underlining guiding ideology of it, is antithetical to our values. that is what we are stressing. >> final questions? anybody echo if not, i will ask the two of you just to hit any points you think that need to be made that have not or need to be stressed as a result of the conversation and we will conclude on that. >> i will say, i sit here in

2013 and i have heard so many different versions of the "al qaeda is dead" argument. to death,awn them that did not happen. you have seen all different versions of the argument. there is something fundamentally wrong, to keep coming back and hearing this argument over time, there is something wrong with the argument. it does not make sense. it keeps popping up over and over again. it is 9/11 exposed a deep ignorance we have as a society of the stalinist organization and everything related to it. that has not necessarily been cured. there is a large gap in our understanding still in all of this. the broader point, ui is right there are many muslims who reject al qaeda and islam is ism.-- and islam is him the problem i have is i do not believe in political determinism. history moves on a razor's edge.

dongs evolve in ways you not necessarily expect. this organization and ideology are revolutionaries. they are putting most of their assets around the globe today, fighting to acquire political power, and they are still very much in the game. it is true not every al qaeda operative immediately targeting us today -- it does not mean there is a potential to target tomorrow. we have seen over and over case.that is the >> one factor that has not come up in this discussion, the united states has gotten a lot better counterterrorism. i do not have an answer to this. avoid having too many opinions as a journalist. we are living or any major terrorist attack is unresectable -- on acceptable.

with the policies obama and a lot of things bush did, it is reflecting the political reality. the question for us in this us as americans, is to say, it is kind of bleak to think the united states will have to operate drones and have shady partnerships in places like yemen. it is hard work. it does not necessarily would we be willing to accept a certain inevitability as i think europeans in the 1970's accepted that there will be terrorist attacks from time to time and it's not the end of the world. this is what i think janet knap when she was department of homeland security, when she was in charge of the department of homeland security, talked about the idea of resilience.